I respect your agnocitisic belief pertaining to whether there is a God, a Heaven, and a Hell. Nevertheless, as a God-fearing Christian, I just don't want to end up in Hell, and suffer in agony for eternity:

I don't know how much of Bill Wiese's depiction is accurate. (Bill Wiese is an individual who claims to have experienced 23 Minutes in Hell.) However, Hell sounds horrifying, a place which I want to avoid being sent to by God "at all costs." In my opinion, it's much better to live for an afterlife, and find out, in the end, that there is none, rather than to gamble on the chance Gehenna doesn't exist and to spend an infinite amount of time in it as the result of an errant guess.

St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica provides a strong argument that Someone, whom he names as God, had to create our universe by opining that it couldn't have suddenly come into existence--there had to be a beginning to it. And, according to Thomism, if the universe was conceived at some point, then it must have had a Creator.

If God can be the cause of its own existence, why can't the universe do so as well? If we throw causality out the window, we can talk about any number of equally valid hypotheses that don't involve God. Kant essentially said that belief in God was not a matter of reason, but a matter of faith. He was a fairly devout Christian as well.

QuotidianPerfection wrote:

In my opinion, it's much better to live for an afterlife, and find out, in the end, that there is none, rather than to gamble on the chance Gehenna doesn't exist and to spend an infinite amount of time in it as the result of an errant guess.

1. Doyle writes the following: If God can be the cause of its own existence, why can't the universe do so as well? If we throw causality out the window, we can talk about any number of equally valid hypotheses that don't involve God. Kant essentially said that belief in God was not a matter of reason, but a matter of faith. He was a fairly devout Christian as well.My response to question one: Even many evolutionists are "ill at ease" with their hypothesis that our cosmos can be shaped and can evolve in a haphazard fashion void of any Intelligent Design. (See "Scientists on Evolution" on the Abounding Joy! site: http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm).

2. Doyle writes the following: "What happens if you find out you believed in the wrong God?"My response to question two: I might be "burned" (pun intended)! Nevertheless, based on the wording of your second inquiry, the odds would be better if I picked a Deity to worship in lieu of investing my faith in atheism or agnosticism.

Second The world can only be a mixture of an evolving nature and a supreme being. Same goes for all the creatures in it. Man can see that we evolved, it can be proofed, but there's always the "Why"-Question, which can only be answered by the existence of a higher force, a god, a supreme being.

Third, there can't of course be no wrong god, because there's only one. All the descriptions, names and even multiplication (in polytheistic beliefs) for it are just descriptions and names.

I find your argument that "The world can only be a mixture of an evolving nature and a supreme being" as interesting. The wording of your philosophical position, though, is vague enough to birthe two futher subjects of inquiry: 1) "Did the evolutionary process create a God, or did a God create the evolutionary process?," and, 2) "Is evolution the measurement of the maturation of a Being into a Deity, and the existence molded by this God?," or "Was God the cause of human amelioration via the process of evolution?" To be honest, I believe God created the evolutionary process, albeit with strict limitations and parameters, so humanity could benefit over time. I will defend my postulations on the basis that strict laws of physics govern our universe which are so precise that a Supreme Being must have organized them, and on the fact that it seems that advancements in technology are the result of unearthing hitherto unknown secrets about God's laws of physics.

I'm on your side, when you say, god created nature, but I think that evolution is the kind of free will nature has, just the same way humans have free will to look at the world as they want to. And I don't think that god gave us or nature strong limitations and parameters, I think we did. It's our free choice as a community to arrange the look on the world outside, to define our common reality. The limitations and parameters came along with the process of trying to understand each other. Nowadays we learn those boundaries before we even explored the world by our own. This is necessary because our common reality nowadays strongly works on the basis of understanding each other and having similar views on it.

I think god - and you know god for me is not a person, it's a creative force - started all this out of a simple reason. Conciousness. I like to say we are god's dream, being its unconcious part, and all of our experiences we make during our lifespan helps god become more aware of itself.

But being its unconcious part, I think, besides creating the process and giving it the meaning of making unconcious things concious, there's no further involvement from it. The way nature does this and the way we do it couldn't be planned, because that would mean the whole process was planned and therefore pretty much useless.

I'm no native english speaker and I'm quite unsatisfied with my wording. So have fun with my crippled thoughts.

cba wrote the following: "I'm no native english speaker and I'm quite unsatisfied with my wording. So have fun with my crippled thoughts." There is no need to worry about your writing, cba, as you articulate your thoughts rather well. I have one question, though: imagine, as I do, that our cosmos is predestined. (Stephen W. Hawking, while a staunch evolutionist, proffers that our universe operates on determinism. I take it to a further extreme than Hawking, and place my faith in the dual conceptions of creation and fatalism.) How would that change you perspective--if at all--on the theories of creation and evolution? Thank you, though, for sharing your perspective with me--it is extremely interesting!

As your question seems to be how anybodys opinion would change my beliefs you have already taken my answer from me by giving me the opportunity to say "not at all". Belief has the strong advantage to being personal, and as long as someones belief is good enough to motivate him to live life as long as possible - must not be as good as possible, but i think it's more satisfying - its a good tool to collect experience. Changing your belief by hearing somebody elses opinions depends how deep your own one is and how well you are prepared for the questions and tests out there.

Besides that I do believe in destiny, and a reason for the creation of the universe and life. So your concept of creation & fatalism is a nice one in my opinion. I just believe that some things in a small matter are possible to be changed by the created things - may it be nature with evolution or may it be humans with decisions. And these things are "builtin-features" to manage the greater goal.

What makes evolution so hated by strict religious persons is that its based on try and error - and god in many religious beliefs would never make mistakes and therefore wouldn't leave the process of defining his creation to a force out of its power. For the reason of Conciousness though it's totally important to have everything tried, even if it went wrong. The concept of the universe in my belief, is to become everything out of nothing. And everything includes everything - so evolution seems like a well chosen feature, and also free will seems like a well chosen feature.

I believe God is perfect. Nevertheless, I am not above using theories which are diametrically opposed to Christianity to analyze poetry and prose when I compose scholarly articles about what beliefs a specific author is trying to convey in his or her works.

I diasgree that life is disorganized. The odds of order spontaneously shaping itself from chaos seems too astromical for me to fathom. There had to be Someone to formulate the scientific laws which bind our universe together in the first place. The Person alluded to herein, at least in my opinion, is the Creator--God.

I do not define God in precisely those terms. Remember, God created the Earth FOR Adam and Eve, with one exception: they were forbidden to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So what did the Edenic duo do (i.e., at Satan's prodding)? They violated the one rule their Creator forbade them to break. Remember, the God of the Bible is not akin to the Greek and the Roman gods, who were immoral themselves, and derived sadistic pleasure from interfering with the lives of humans and assigned cruel and unusual punishments to some of their mortal enemies. Once humanity transgressed, no one would, on his or her own volition, accept the grace of God, even if it were freely offered. (Christ's crucifixion, as theologian Dr. James White, explained, "paid the price for" certain humans' misdeeds by enduring God's punishment so that God's elect would not have to face His wrath.) Consequently, God had to predestine who would ask Christ for absolution, or else everyone would go to Hell. Unfortunately, God could not save everyone, or else, as Dr. James White points out, God would not be considered a just God who punishes those who violates His Laws. Some might argue that predestination is similar to the Greco-Roman philosophy of fatalism. Nevertheless, the teleological aim of fatalism in the Bible concerns saving some persons from perdition through the Holy Spirit's power, since He is responsible for convicting God's elect, and "bringing them to Christ." The Greco-Roman philosophy, on the other hand, involves immoral immortals showing that they have the authority to plan the destiny of the mortals whom they exercise jurisdiction over, some of whom are also unscrupulous. But, to answer you question, God isn't a bully--He approaches Adam and Eve in a selfless way, as opposed to the Greek and Roman gods, who treat their subjects in a very selfish manner. Hence, when God sculpted order out of chaos, the word originally possesed the neutral connotation of randomness. Later, the term "chaos" acquired a negative connation when humanity sinned again God, and began to mean disorder and destruction (as your post implies)--BUT ONLY AFTER HUMANITY DISOBEYED THEIR CREATOR.

I started with a review of what happens to unbelievers of major faiths, and here are my summarized conclusions, sorted into groups:

-REINCARNATION BASED-Taoism: endless rebirth until you achieve immortalityBuddhism: causal rebirth. Mess up, and your next body's gonna suck (can be animals).Confucianism: causal rebirth. Mess up, and your next body's gonna suck (but you'll still be human).Hinduism: causal rebirth. Mess up, and your next body's gonna suck (as in, you'll be an animal, but once your time as an animal is up you're back to human).Jainism: rebirth until heaven (can be inanimate objects like stones, air, or water).Wiccan: reincarnation with karma attached (only human).Sikhism: endless reincarnation (animals included), and no heaven whatsoever.

-ONE SHOT-Bahaism: spirit world, which fluctuates between heaven and hell based on your choices in the spirit world and on earth.Rastafari: heaven. Yes, everyone gets heaven.Christianity: hell.Islam: hell.Judaism: as long as you follow the seven laws of Noah (which all major religions advise you do) you're fine. If not, you are detached from God in the spirit world.Mormonism: you wait in limbo until everyone is eventually reunited with their bodies.Shintoism: once you're dead you go into a spirit world where you can help your decedents.Zoroastrianism: hell, but you get pulled up into heaven once the earth ends.Atheism: nothingness.

Now, since I'm an agnostic (which I assume most everyone here is as well) I realize that any or multiple of these belief systems can be true. With this in mind, I went through and filtered out those faiths in which the punishment for not adhering to it wasn't really that bad. I was left with Atheism, Christianity, and Islam. Now, the reason I didn't choose to believe in Atheism is simply because I see no reason to do so. There are no benefits, besides time saved trying to adhere to another faith. When it came down to me to choose between Islam and Christianity, I was torn. I eventually settled on Christianity because I'm lazy and it was convenient.

I have read your link to Blaise Pascal, who, according to wikipedia, opines that individuals should live according to Christian precepts just per chance Christian precepts are valid. I also perused through your summary of other religions, and their beliefs. If one puts philosophy aside, however, and just takes scientific evidence into account (e.g., Noah's Ark, Christ's burial shroud, etc.), Christianity is the only religion which can be proven by science and mathematics.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest physicists ever, was also a devout Christian. Newton believed that the natural laws of science could prove God's existence. Here is a link to a site providing very brief information about the preceding concern, which is entitled "Who Was Newton's God?": http://www.usislam.org/god/newtongod.htm. Although I, as a Reformed Baptist, do not accept Newton's Anti-Trinitarianism, I thoroughly embrace his suggestion (i.e., delivered through autobiographical testimony) that not all legendary scientists are atheists, agnostics, or evolutionists. By the way, I intentionally chose an Islamic site to provide a portrait of Newton's theistic creeds so I can avoid accusations of selecting a Christian site which misquotes and misparaphrases Newton, while, simultaneously, taking his words out of context in an effort to read Christian thoughts into Newton's words.

I have read your link to Blaise Pascal, who, according to wikipedia, opines that individuals should live according to Christian precepts just per chance Christian precepts are valid. I also perused through your summary of other religions, and their beliefs. If one puts philosophy aside, however, and just takes scientific evidence into account (e.g., Noah's Ark, Christ's burial shroud, etc.), Christianity is the only religion who can be proven by science and mathematics.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest physicists ever, was also a devout Christian. Newton believed that the natural laws of science could prove God's existence. Here is a link to an site providing very brief information about the preceding concern, which is entitled "Who Was Newton's God?": http://www.usislam.org/god/newtongod.htm. Although I, as a Reformed Baptist, do not accept Newton's Anti-Trinitarianism, I thoroughly embrace his suggestion (i.e., delivered through autobiographical testimony) that not all legendary scientists are atheists, agnostics, or evolutionists. By the way, I intentionally chose an Islamic site to provide a portrait of Newton's theistic creeds so I can avoid accusations of a Christian site quoting paraphrasing Newton, while, simultaneously, taking his words out of context.

Take care.

Best Wishes,QuotidianPerfection

The reason I don't go off of Science is because Science uses Empirical data, and I don't trust that. Not with something this important at least It's great that it can be proven Scientifically, but it can't be proven by the philosophy I believe. Not trying to derail this into an Epistemological debate though.

You brought up a great point about religion! There are usually two ways individuals approach beliefs: through the lenses of science and philosophy. The classical debate leads some to posit that quantitative studies, which transpire in scientific realms, cannot be interspersed with qualitative analysis, which occur in the philosophical environments. In simplest terms, quantitative analyses attempt to use mathematical laws to solve problems, whereas qualitative studies place emphasis on how logical assertions are. Historically speaking, quantitative searches are construed as objective whereas qualitative explications are considered as subjective. In other words, the former concept emphasizes something which can be tested free from personal bias, and, if it is true, attain repeatable results on experiments which follow, as opposed to the latter concept, in which the logic of a situation can be confounded by a personal opinion.

Nevertheless, the advent of quantum mechanics has shown the classical qualitative / quantitative divide to be a false dichotomy. In A Brief History of Time: From Big Bangs to Black Holes, Stephen W. Hawking, points out that Maxwell Planck, a scientist, noted that 1) "the more of knows about a particle's speed, the less they know about it's location, and vice-versa," and 2) answers in quantum physics generally yield a solution set (e.g., a quadratic formula) rather than a single solution (e.g., a point-slope formula). Although I believe that God, and not a big bang, was responsible for bringing our cosmos into existence, I find it interesting that 1) one can understand more about one idea, but only at the expense of the other, and 2) science does not always lead researchers to one answer to a problem, but to many outputs. Hawking's discussion, as a result, implies that there are no such things as quantitative or qualitative investigations when addressing the issue of religion, since both inquiries are used when scientific philosophers test whether certain creeds are credible.

I believe that humans are designed with the capacity to create languages, information of which, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not evolve, but, rather, devolves over time. The opinion expressed reflects the opinions of Chemist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's "The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution," and Chemist Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith's "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution." For example, inflective languages have lost many of their inflective cases, and have now become analytic (i.e., word order) languages, as pointed out by Dr. Sarfati in 148-9 of his book.

To understand my viewpoint on why language did not evolve in a progressive fashion, though, you have to comprehend the raison d' etre I now believe that big bang cosmology and life emerging from nonlife belong in fiction novels, not in science classrooms. (See my review of an evolution book written by a Marxist author below, which I will soon post on Amazon.com.)

(Critique): Materialism, and Its Influence on The Science of Evolution

Dear Dr. Skybreak:

I have read The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: Knowing What’s Real and Why It Matters, and found it, while vastly intriguing, largely predicated upon materialistic beliefs. The Science of Evolution mentions that Karl Marx challenges feudalism and divine right as being grounded in an archaic order which permits the upper class to exploit the poor and uneducated, and uses frequent Appeals to Heaven to keep them in their place (79). The Science of Evolution also observes that Marx, based on the understanding alluded to herein, wrote his Das Kapital, and dedicated it to Darwin (79). However, as Allene Phy-Olsen points out in her Historical Guides to Controversial Issues in America: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, “Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, who politely declined the honor” (38). Although Marxism proclaims a direct objective geared towards eliminating manipulation of the poor by the rich, and creating a classless society in the process, Dr. Richard Dawkins, himself an evolutionist, acknowledges that no morality exists within the confines of a pure evolutionary system. As Dr. Dawkins argues in A River out of Eden, “On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes…such a universe would be neither good nor evil in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind” (132-3). Darwinism, rather than liberating and equalizing classes, has been implemented to maintain control over certain types of people. American slavery assumed white genetic superiority over blacks, sometimes even reducing members of the latter category to primates. The Nazis used Darwinian-based theories to justify the wholesale eradication of the Jewish population, who the Nazis deemed as inferior, and capable of contaminating the Aryan gene pool. Also, when Vladimir Lenin introduced Marxist policies into Russia, this rapidly deteriorated into an oppressive regime led by Joseph Stalin, a dictator. Rather than create a classless society, Marxism, by planting its roots in an amoral survivalist struggle, actually brought about the most debilitating economic condition of all: a malevolent dictatorship. Marxism’s objective failure can even be seen today in China, as a large amount of its inhabitants live in subpar conditions. Though Marxism seemed theoretically feasible, it failed to work in practical environments. Sir Karl Popper, the father of falsification, and a Darwinist, as Stephen Thorton’s “Karl Popper” recognizes, deemed neo-Marxist creeds unscientific due to their unfalsifiable nature (4). The doctrine of falsification, according to Sir Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery, mandates that disproof of a hypotheses or theories en parte disproves both the former and the latter en toto (41).

Perhaps the most obvious conception which cautions against confusing the theoretical with the practical involves the notion of the Big Bang (i.e., material formed from a genesis of absolute nothingness) which, while perhaps mathematically plausible, has yet to offer an explanation about how such events would unfold on realistic terrain. Stephen W. Hawking, in his Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, acknowledges that humans can never know what transpired before the Big Bang, due to a complete “breakdown” of physical laws which demarcate the state of the world prior to its sudden development (91). Jim Al-Khalili, in Black Holes, Worm Holes, and Time Machines, notes that the singularity of a black hole is not a point of zero size possessing infinite curvature (65). It is, instead, a tiny ring which shrinks in size over an infinite period of time, approaching nothingness, yet never quite reaching that quantity (65). The aforementioned concept proves crucial, since it begs the following query: if certain scientists cannot conceive of mass shriveling out of existence, which disregards the First Law of Thermodynamics, then how can one logically reason the converse, and assert that our cosmos is self-created, an explanation which validates spontaneous generation, a theory that Louis Pasteur has already disproved? The universe possesses three possible origins: 1) it created itself; 2) it has always been extant; 3) it is designed. The first alternative resurrects the falsehood of spontaneous generation, while the second, as Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith realizes in his The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, is simply information which is the work of a Designer (7). Since the universe is infinite, this means that the matter present in it, too, contains an eternal origin (7). This implies that the Cultivator of such matter must be omnipotent to create such pieces that are part and parcel of one puzzle; the Creator must be omnipresent to remain observant over all of that which is fashioned; the Designer must be omniscient in order to develop the proper scientific laws governing the movement of such particles without such edicts leading to their annihilation. For a fuller appreciation of this topic, see “Bethinking 2/6: John Lennox on Stephen Hawking’s ‘The Grand Design’”: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eHfhbP1K_4>.

As mentioned in the opening paragraph, it is worth acknowledging that some Creationists believe the title of the book itself, The Science of Evolution, champions Darwinian arguments over Creationist propositions from the onset. Yet, these monikers imply that evolution is factual, whereas Creationism constitutes Sophistry, based on the annexation of the suffix “ism” to “Creation.” A more impartial way would entail counterbalancing the two diametrically concepts above (i.e., “Darwinism,” a synonym for both microevolution and macroevolution, against “Creationism”). One can rid the title of philosophical bias altogether by contrasting the science of “Evolution” with the science of “Creation.” Science is derived from the Latin term meaning “to know,” and, since epistemology is at the root of science, it would be helpful to allow the reader to decide which of the two metaphysical theories are truer to science, and, on that vein, whether or not one or both theories are even scientific. It should be duly noted that, in The Science of Evolution, all beliefs in divine creation are crowded under the mythic umbrella (14-15), whereas atheistic, naturalistic doctrines throughout the book are presented as factual. The implication one can draw from such a presentation is problematic: since science involves epistemology, and epistemology rejects the supernatural, science rejects the supernatural, leading some to the conclusion that atheism is a fact.

The Science of Evolution posits that Creationists reject all aspects of evolution (73), but this is not a conviction shared by every Creationist. As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati points out in his The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution, genes do mutate, but bacteria acquire resistance by devolving, or losing information (68-9). Likewise, cross-breeding experiments succeed because organisms are of the same kind (34-7). While mixing kinds might add new traits to a species (45-6), information, in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can only be lost, and never gained (262). Even the modern-day dinosaur, the Tuatara, has not evolved dramatically over a supposed “220 million years,” as pointed out in “Tuatara: New Zealand’s Living Dinosaur” (pars. 1-3). Moreover, as “Coelacanth: The Fish out of Time” recognizes, the Coelacanth Fish, though formerly estimated to have become extinct “65 million years ago,” is still living today (par. 1). Animals cannot be extinct and alive, as this is a logical contradiction, leading Dr. Wilder-Smith, in his The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, to question the accuracy of Index Fossil Dating (11-4). In Mount St. Helen’s, too, recently formed volcanic rock was dated at millions of years. As Dr. Wilder-Smith’s The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution posits, the decay rates are tempered both by inorganic activity and atmospheric conditions (14 ff.).

According to The Science of Evolution, “the theory of evolution is falsifiable in principle, but, as a point of fact, science has never found a single thing to falsify it” (306); yet, further investigation into this sector has unearthed proofs which directly contradict evolution. Dr. Wilder-Smith, who teamed with fellow Creationist, Dr. Edgar Andrews, in debating two Darwinists, Dr. Dawkins and Dr. John Maynard-Smith, at Huxley Memorial Hall in Oxford, disproved three evolutionary claims, two of which are experiments performed by Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Harold Urey which allegedly prove abiogenesis, and one that is an argument used by T.H. Huxley against Bishop Samuel Wilberforce in a debate to suggest that a Creator is unnecessary, existentially speaking, for humans. Here are the hypothetical Darwinian claims: 1) if abiogenesis succeeds in the Miller-Urey experiment, then nucleotides must be extracted; 2) if abiogenesis transpires during the Miller-Urey experiment, then all molecules must be left-handed; 3) if primates are given perpetually working typewriters (“where time is infinite, the probability is one”), the Twenty-Third Psalm, like humans, can form randomly. Dr. Wilder-Smith falsifies such hypotheses by noting that no nucleotides are trapped during the Miller-Urey experiment, fifty percent of the molecules obtained during the Miller-Urey experiment are right-handed, and enzymes are simulacra to “reversible typewriters”: they “type and un-type,” always returning to their source. For Dr. Wilder-Smith’s detailed explanations to why such evolutionary hypotheses are invalid, see “Huxley Memorial Debate 1986 02 14 (7 Dr Arthur Wilder Smith – Prof of Pharmacology / Cons of Geneva))”: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x_V1VOH_UE>. As Dr. Sarfati’s Greatest Hoax points out, the concept of ape-hominids, especially Lucy, has been debunked (156-7). Sir Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery, too, only permits a single falsification per theory, whereas Irme Lakatos’ falsification model, as Dr. Sarfati’s Greatest Hoax notes, permits a theory to be defended by numerous auxiliary hypotheses in succession (76). In the Popperian model, one falsification can destroy a scientific theory (76). In the Lakatosian plan, one can hold onto a metaphysical concept in perpetuity simply by replacing one falsified auxiliary hypothesis with another one (76), as Irme Lakatos demonstrates in his “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” (174-5).

I value the breadth of The Science of Evolution, and the time and energy which you have spent in carefully packing information into it. It is well-written, informative, and illuminated with timely evolutionary pictures, diagrams, charts, and other useful aids. Although I find the extensive evolutionary genealogies in The Science of Evolution fascinating, it is imperative to realize that wonderment and facts are ideologically different. A theory can be delivered brilliantly, and can crystallize a “3D” image in a reader’s mind of a highly accessible idea which is void of murky philosophical jargon—and yet the picture, for all its beauty, truth, and complexity, could turn out to be false. The parts of The Science of Evolution which I strongly disagree with are those which present Creation and Intelligent Design as simplistic and mythical, when, in fact, they are metaphysical ideas that prove just as intriguing as evolution. Consequently, I believe that challenging the reader to view science through an overly Marxist lens might weaken some of your arguments by eliding what Sir Popper considers a pseudoscientific principle (i.e., Marxism) with what you consider a scientific one (i.e., Darwinian theory), and, as a result, can make certain criticisms of Creation and Intelligent Design appear as caustic and defiant dismissals of a Controller, which, as you imply, is explicable from a purely naturalistic perspective. Let us part ways, and just accept the fact that the Creationist-Darwinian war, while controversial, benefits us by producing interesting scientific philosophies on both battlefronts.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum